The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts of the defendant or misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles 1) As to the establishment of a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (including divulgence, etc. of trade secrets), the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as “the instant personal information”) among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that the instant personal information constitutes trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and the customer company H employment information (hereinafter referred to as “the instant employment information”), although it does not constitute trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2) As to whether an attempted occupational breach of trust is established, the instant information does not constitute trade secrets, and thus, the Defendant cannot constitute an attempted occupational breach of trust using trade secrets as set forth in the lower judgment.

In addition, as long as the Defendant did not engage in franchise activities, not only those of the victimized company but also those of others, the Defendant did not constitute a person who administers another’s business, but also committed an act in violation of the duties under the contract or the good faith principle on September 1, 2015, which was later transferred to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) on September 1, 2015, when he did not agree with the victimized company as set forth in its reasoning, and did not act as a franchise from the victimized company as a franchise in the victimized company, and took place on September 1, 2015.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, from September 1, 2015, the Defendant had already worked as the Hague Hunter belonging to K and had the intention to run the employment procedure of the G candidate as the Hague Hunter belonging to K. The Defendant was illegitimate.